BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:Detroit became more if a issue when tv money became more important. Locally and nationally as teams are making piles of cash in their own deals and I am sure NBC was just thrilled with putting Detroit home games on at 4:30 out west and having wings away playoff games end at 1:00 am. Their advertisers probably loved that.

We need to think beyond Columbus needing rivalry help and look at the big picture.

As far as the playoffs go all teams in the NHL need an equal shot because most need them to make money. It doesn't matter in MLB, in factors teams makeover money by keeping payroll low.

If the pirates needed the playoffs like the pens do believe me the MLB leagues would have been even years ago.

Columbus is in a similar boat as Detroit, only they're rarely on NBC. Since they play a lot of games in Mountain or Pacific, their games are ending around 12 or 1.

You (general) may say "But no one cares about Columbus." That's false. YOU don't care about Columbus. Fact is, Columbus is a better local TV market than the Rangers, Devils, and Kings, if you look at the ratings. Moving them into a division with Pittsburgh and other marquee teams in the East would grow their ratings even further.

I agree with the part about Columbus, everyone seems focused on Detroit and its not just about them it's about the league and its overall revenue and deals too. NBC is probably expecting this move. Detroit and Columbus will get better ratings for away games but the national tv dealers probably think that's just as important for them too.

As far as rating remember ratings are a percentage of viewers not actual viewers. The bigger the city the lower the ratings typically because they have more variations, different demographics, overall size and quite frankly areas like NYC and LA have more African American viewers who do not watch hockey.

Not to mention advertisers love NYC and LA area because the NHL demo is white affluent males age 25-49. Huge for advertisers to pull that demo in large cities and quite frankly why the NHL still gets tv deals despite lower ratings.

I can see how this new look makes sence of TV ratings, location, travel and other things. But it really blows my mind that they can have one confrence with 16 teams and one with 14 and say the competitive balance issue is resolved?? even the wild cards doesn't give the 8 team divisions a better chance of making the playoffs.

I seen Darren Dreger on NHL live and he said as many GMs he talked to who likes this, there are just as many who do not. He also said you can expect this thing to be tweeked befor the final draft is put in place.

no name wrote:I can see how this new look makes sence of TV ratings, location, travel and other things. But it really blows my mind that they can have one confrence with 16 teams and one with 14 and say the competitive balance issue is resolved?? even the wild cards doesn't give the 8 team divisions a better chance of making the playoffs.

I seen Darren Dreger on NHL live and he said as many GMs he talked to who likes this, there are just as many who do not. He also said you can expect this thing to be tweeked befor the final draft is put in place.

I agree it doesn't seem fair for teams in the east, but I have to feel that they took this into consideration along with expansion. Looks like two teams in the west will be added in the coming years. Seattle and ???

Idoit40fans wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if they added two teams that weren't Seattle and just moved Phoenix to Seattle.

Expansion and relocation will be big in the next few years. The realignment you see today won't be what the NHL looks like in a few years. The top 4 cities i have read about for a team was, Markham (second Tor. team), Seattle, Quebec and KC with their new arena which doesn't have a major tennent. I can see thoes cites getting teams in a few years, most already have ideas or actual new arenas in place.

This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

TheHammer24 wrote:This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

I think this structure is absurd.

yes. this sums up my feelings quite nicely.

and if anyone says, "the best team should be able to win no matter who they're playing" or some bullcrap like that, i'll want to start punching things. you need help to go far in the playoffs. you can't just will yourself to a win. this isn't the NBA.

TheHammer24 wrote:This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

I think this structure is absurd.

yes. this sums up my feelings quite nicely.

and if anyone says, "the best team should be able to win no matter who they're playing" or some bullcrap like that, i'll want to start punching things. you need help to go far in the playoffs. you can't just will yourself to a win. this isn't the NBA.

This x100,000.

Look, sports (and life) is about probabilities. Even heavy favorites have something like a 75% chance of winning.

So, under an ideal scheme, the #1 seed's chance of winning the cup will look like this:

Why is Milwaukee ignored as a possible expansion city? The State of Wisconsin has a great hockey tradition, produces a lot of talent and has a great college team. It makes more sense than KC for American cities. While I agree that more Canadian teams makes sense, I think moving a team from Miami or Phoenix to KC or Seattle is just moving on problem to another city without a strong hockey affiliation.

MilPenFan wrote:Why is Milwaukee ignored as a possible expansion city? The State of Wisconsin has a great hockey tradition, produces a lot of talent and has a great college team. It makes more sense than KC for American cities. While I agree that more Canadian teams makes sense, I think moving a team from Miami or Phoenix to KC or Seattle is just moving on problem to another city without a strong hockey affiliation.

Like someone said earlier, two NHL teams in Missouri?

Milwaukee is way too close to the Chicago fan market. I definitely see what you are saying, I'm just not convinced there is enough of a new fan base to support it. I feel like most of the hockey fans in Wisconsin are already devout Blackhawks fans, so it would be tough to pull away from that.

My only response would be that in the early 90s Milwaukee all but had a team until Lloyd Petit balked at the expansion fee when taken into consideration with the way that an expansion team was going to be put together (i.e. he would have been happy to pay the fee for the team but with the structure in place for expansion teams he saw that any new team would struggle for a decade before putting up a good product). So an expansion team was in place before. Chicago is its own market, hugely popular and doesnt draw from Milwaukee much at all.

Here in East Central Wisconsin we get Wild games on our local Fox Sports channel. We cant even watch the Blackhawks.

MilPenFan wrote:Why is Milwaukee ignored as a possible expansion city? The State of Wisconsin has a great hockey tradition, produces a lot of talent and has a great college team. It makes more sense than KC for American cities. While I agree that more Canadian teams makes sense, I think moving a team from Miami or Phoenix to KC or Seattle is just moving on problem to another city without a strong hockey affiliation.

Like someone said earlier, two NHL teams in Missouri?

Milwaukee is way too close to the Chicago fan market. I definitely see what you are saying, I'm just not convinced there is enough of a new fan base to support it. I feel like most of the hockey fans in Wisconsin are already devout Blackhawks fans, so it would be tough to pull away from that.

I do agree that two teams in Missouri is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea.

Yeah. Milwaukee is all but 90 minutes from Chicago and even closer when you consider the proximity of some Northern Chicagoland areas.

TheHammer24 wrote:This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

I think this structure is absurd.

yes. this sums up my feelings quite nicely.

and if anyone says, "the best team should be able to win no matter who they're playing" or some bullcrap like that, i'll want to start punching things. you need help to go far in the playoffs. you can't just will yourself to a win. this isn't the NBA.

I think you're overselling the "fairness" aspect and the whole "the best team doesn't always win", particularly when you look at the reality of who wins the cup since the NHL expanded in 67:

The only team outside of the top ten who has ever won the Cup was LA, last year. Every other team was a top 10 team, and in nearly ever year, the winner was a top 5 overall team (and we know that over an 82-game season, the difference between, say, the top 4 teams is pretty negligible). I'm not going to sit up at night fretting about whether overall #8 in the West is actually slightly worse than overall #9 in the East. The advantages in realigning like this (or something close to this) for TV, time zone restructuring, divisional playoff intensity/repetition outweigh the hand wringing over whether some team with 90 pts is really better than some team with 89 points, but because there is only 7 teams the 89er made it and the 92 didn't. No system aside from a 32-team single conference league where everyone plays everyone else home and away once each and is seeded 1-16 is going to be "fair." Every year someone benefits from playing in a weaker division (Hi SE Division!). This plan isn't unfair to the point that these concerns outweigh the benefits IMO. The wild card aspect ensures that you have the top 8 teams from each respective conference 99.9% of the time. Frankly, its a temporary fix anyways until they get to 32.

TheHammer24 wrote:This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

I think this structure is absurd.

yes. this sums up my feelings quite nicely.

and if anyone says, "the best team should be able to win no matter who they're playing" or some bullcrap like that, i'll want to start punching things. you need help to go far in the playoffs. you can't just will yourself to a win. this isn't the NBA.

I think you're overselling the "fairness" aspect and the whole "the best team doesn't always win", particularly when you look at the reality of who wins the cup since the NHL expanded in 67:

The only team outside of the top ten who has ever won the Cup was LA, last year. Every other team was a top 10 team, and in nearly ever year, the winner was a top 5 overall team (and we know that over an 82-game season, the difference between, say, the top 4 teams is pretty negligible). I'm not going to sit up at night fretting about whether overall #8 in the West is actually slightly worse than overall #9 in the East. The advantages in realigning like this (or something close to this) for TV, time zone restructuring, divisional playoff intensity/repetition outweigh the hand wringing over whether some team with 90 pts is really better than some team with 89 points, but because there is only 7 teams the 89er made it and the 92 didn't. No system aside from a 32-team single conference league where everyone plays everyone else home and away once each and is seeded 1-16 is going to be "fair." Every year someone benefits from playing in a weaker division (Hi SE Division!). This plan isn't unfair to the point that these concerns outweigh the benefits IMO. The wild card aspect ensures that you have the top 8 teams from each respective conference 99.9% of the time. Frankly, its a temporary fix anyways until they get to 32.

i think the second part of hammer's point (and what my point mainly relates to) is more significant than the 16/14 thing. the seeding matters. significantly so.

TheHammer24 wrote:This structure significantly affects fairness. If we assume the top 16 teams should make the playoffs, top 8 to the next round, and the top 2 eventually square for the NHL finals, this structure does almost everything it can to avoid that.

First, by placing two extra teams in one conference, you've increased the chance that an inferior team in the West will make the playoffs over a more deserving team in the east by seven percentage points, a 14% increase. 8/14=57%. 8/16=50%.

Next, by not seeding 1 vs 8, you heavily increase the chance that the stronger division will perennially fail to advance to additional rounds. For simplicity sake, assume 1 always beats 8, 2 always beats 7, and so on. So if one division produces the four best teams (as the Atlantic essentially did last year), then only 2 teams advance instead the four. You see some of this in the current structure---Pittsburgh and Philly shouldn't have played each other---but the new structure exacerbates this problem. Still further, assume the best two teams are in the Atlantic. You'll guarantee that only one of them will play in the finals.

I think this structure is absurd.

yes. this sums up my feelings quite nicely.

and if anyone says, "the best team should be able to win no matter who they're playing" or some bullcrap like that, i'll want to start punching things. you need help to go far in the playoffs. you can't just will yourself to a win. this isn't the NBA.

I think you're overselling the "fairness" aspect and the whole "the best team doesn't always win", particularly when you look at the reality of who wins the cup since the NHL expanded in 67:

The only team outside of the top ten who has ever won the Cup was LA, last year. Every other team was a top 10 team, and in nearly ever year, the winner was a top 5 overall team (and we know that over an 82-game season, the difference between, say, the top 4 teams is pretty negligible). I'm not going to sit up at night fretting about whether overall #8 in the West is actually slightly worse than overall #9 in the East. The advantages in realigning like this (or something close to this) for TV, time zone restructuring, divisional playoff intensity/repetition outweigh the hand wringing over whether some team with 90 pts is really better than some team with 89 points, but because there is only 7 teams the 89er made it and the 92 didn't. No system aside from a 32-team single conference league where everyone plays everyone else home and away once each and is seeded 1-16 is going to be "fair." Every year someone benefits from playing in a weaker division (Hi SE Division!). This plan isn't unfair to the point that these concerns outweigh the benefits IMO. The wild card aspect ensures that you have the top 8 teams from each respective conference 99.9% of the time. Frankly, its a temporary fix anyways until they get to 32.

i think the second part of hammer's point (and what my point mainly relates to) is more significant than the 16/14 thing. the seeding matters. significantly so.

The NHL had pure divisional playoffs from 81 to 94. A pure divisional playoff is the "least" fair way to determine seeding of the potential options.

In those 14 years the Cup winner was in the top 6 overall teams all but three teams, and 7th overall the other 3 times. I can live with that world. Again, IMO, this is overblown if you look at the results. The benefits of divisional play with concessions to "fairness" with two wild cards outweighs the concerns of not having a pure 1-8 seeding structure (which we don't even have now).

Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

slappybrown wrote:Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

slappybrown wrote:Hammer's complaint -- and to use his hypothetical -- is that in a world where PGH and PHI are top 2 in the East, they shouldn't play until the conference finals. In a divisional world, they play in the second round instead. Sorry?

see, i think that matters quite a bit, actually.

Fair enough. It has consequences, no doubt (in this hypothetical world where chalk holds, less playoff revenue compared to what one might otherwise have chief among them). I think the benefits -- primarily increased viewership and TV money where there is a significantly higher chance of seeing PIT v. PHI, NYR v. PHI, TOR v. DET, LA v. ANA, EDM v. CGY, the matchups that guarantee heat and eyeballs -- outweigh the decreased "fairness" and potential lost tickets. I personally root for us to play one of our traditional rivals every year, no matter what, so far fans like me, it also has that intangible value.

I don't really disagree with you Slappy. Perhaps I am over-valuing "fairness" and perhaps further I am ignoring the anecdotes you provide. The second half of your most recent long post is also spot on. The current system is also not fair under my scenario. But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option.

I think one thing you ignore is it doesn't just matter who wins the Cup---I think it also matters who gets to the Cup, who gets to the Conference finals, and who gets the second round. There is significant disutility from your team losing earlier than they should.

Moreover, that "one of the best teams in the NHL" always wins the Cup ignores my central point: I suggest that the proposed system will make it significantly harder for certain teams to win the Cup. Suppose the West is fairly divided between a 7 and 8 team conference, but the East is divided into a stacked 8-team conference (NJ, NYR, Pittsburgh, Boston, Philly, Montreal, Detroit, Washington). Under a divisional playoff system (and unequal sized divisions), you would undoubtedly expect that division to win fewer Stanley Cups. Yet, you would also expect a top-six team to always win the Cup. Presumably every Stanley Cup will be played between a top team from the West and a top team from the East, both whom are top-six NHL teams. That the Cup produces a "good team" as champion, doesn't mean the playoff system doesn't unfairly eliminate good teams too early or from the playoffs altogether.

TheHammer24 wrote:I don't really disagree with you Slappy. Perhaps I am over-valuing "fairness" and perhaps further I am ignoring the anecdotes you provide. The second half of your most recent long post is also spot on. The current system is also not fair under my scenario. But that a more-fair option is not the most-fair option is not a reason to choose a less-fair option.

I think one thing you ignore is it doesn't just matter who wins the Cup---I think it also matters who gets to the Cup, who gets to the Conference finals, and who gets the second round. There is significant disutility from your team losing earlier than they should.

Moreover, that "one of the best teams in the NHL" always wins the Cup ignores my central point: I suggest that the proposed system will make it significantly harder for certain teams to win the Cup. Suppose the West is fairly divided between a 7 and 8 team conference, but the East is divided into a stacked 8-team conference (NJ, NYR, Pittsburgh, Boston, Philly, Montreal, Detroit, Washington). Under a divisional playoff system (and unequal sized divisions), you would undoubtedly expect that conference to win fewer Stanley Cups. Yet, you would also expect a top-six team to always win the Cup. Presumably every Stanley Cup will be played between a top team from the West and a top team from the East, both whom are top-six NHL teams. That the Cup produces a "good team" as champion, doesn't mean the playoff system doesn't unfairly eliminate good teams too early or from the playoffs altogether.

If one of the best teams are more inclined to win the cup I still think it would happen no matter what teams they play or in what order. If Pittsburgh has to face Philly in the first round or the 3rd round does it really matter? Either way, one team progresses and one team doesn't. The order in which teams play the best shouldn't matter. And it would cease this stupid notion that the round you make it to really matters if you still lose in the playoffs.